Armfield: 'Friendlies are vital'

Sven Goran Eriksson has already demonstrated that he is charming, educated, open-minded, and cool under pressure. Now he has proved that he can be a tough cookie, too.

The Swede's dark warning that he is likely to invoke a Fifa ruling, by which selected players must report to international duty for the full get-together even if they are injured, marks the end of his long "discovery period". Having started as a foreigner with fresh ideas, Eriksson now has to contend with the same old problems that blighted his most recent predecessors' tenures. A World Cup and nearly two years into the job, he finds himself in the very English position of fighting tooth and nail to secure the release of key players for every international game.

One man who has seen the storms before is Jimmy Armfield. The former England right-back, who shone at the 1962 World Cup and would have been first choice in the team that won the event on home soil in 1966 but for injury, says such rows are nothing new. He does, however, feel that they have become more pronounced in recent years. "It seems to be an ever-growing problem," he says, "and that worries me, because we would never have won the World Cup had it not been for friendlies."

Armfield, now a BBC radio pundit, adds: "Non-competitive matches have never been important in terms of results, but they are absolutely vital if England want to build a close-knit unit. Friendlies are an opportunity to get players together in a relaxed setting, so that they can become close friends."

While Armfield can empathise with both camps in the club v country debate, he does not understand the thinking of some of the modern-day players. "I don't want to be looking at things through rose-tinted spectacles," he says, "but no one would ever have thought of missing an England game when I was playing. It was too special an honour.

"That said, I realise that the clubs were under different pressures back then. Football is much more of a business these days."

Put simply, as the stakes for the clubs have risen, so too have the number of withdrawals from international squads. "It's all about money," Armfield says. "And it's the same with all the countries. Look at Newcastle: they spend £50,000 getting Craig Bellamy back in shape and then Wales come along and want him to play for them days after he's made his comeback.

"I don't blame Bobby [Robson, the Newcastle United manager] for being nervous about letting him go. And Wales are playing a Euro 2004 qualifier, so no wonder Manchester United are even more sceptical about releasing their stars for England's friendly."

The club-country issue has been tackled by every England manager for the last 20 years, but few have been as perplexed as the present incumbent. For a Swede, Eriksson displays an Australian-like desire to win and, in the mould of our antipodean cousins, cannot understand why anyone would want to avoid gaining another cap.

On Friday, as he addressed the media, you could see the confusion, as much as the anger, etched on his face. Eriksson has been a club manager himself. He has always understood the needs of Ferguson, Robson, Wenger and Houllier. The difference now is that Eriksson is in England. When the Italian or Portuguese national teams play, their clubs take a back seat. Here, they like to keep control.

The biggest bone of contention surrounds Paul Scholes, the supposedly injured midfielder who completed 73 minutes for Manchester United on Tuesday night. "I told Ferguson I was surprised," Eriksson said, "but I do not believe that a fully fit player would not want to come here. I refuse to believe that." Unfortunately for Eriksson, it is not the players who make the decisions.